The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case concerning defendant D and F is reversed.

Defendant

D shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than three years and six months;

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable for the lower court to punish the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case, which is a common element of sentencing, committed the crime of this case, after the Defendants shared the Defendants’ systematic roles, leased the gas station near the oil pipelines, and installed a large quantity of petroleum conditioning facilities on the oil pipelines around the oil stations using special skills and tools, and subsequently committed a theft or attempted theft of a large quantity of petroleum. The crime of this case is highly interviewed with and sealed by the law on the number of crimes.

Oil in oil pipelines prescribed in the Oil Pipeline Safety Control Act is highly valuable in the social and economic value, risks that may lead to large accidents such as explosion of oil pipelines or fire in the course of theft are high, and when oil pipelines are damaged, the leakage of oil causes damage to the oil and causes damage to the lives and property of the general public.

The victim corporation, dopco is seeking punishment for the defendants.

B. Defendant A is a favorable condition for the Defendant to the effect that he/she is making a technical cooperation with the victim in order to prevent the theft of oil after installing a petroleum cutting facility on the oil pipelines in the future.

In addition to the Defendant planned and led the instant crime, the Defendant continued to commit the instant crime by asking Defendant F to discontinue the crime, and the Defendant’s request was made at the place to commit the crime, and the Defendant continued to commit the crime after printing “In person V oil station”. “In Incheon V oil station” continues to commit the crime by moving the place to “in person AA oil station” who is suspected of being suspected from dopco from dopco, and even after the occurrence of the crime, Defendant D’s criminal investigation documents, such as AC and AB, an accomplice, and the Defendant and Defendant D, who are not yet posted on the investigation line, are not good enough.